rs4u+@ANDREW.CMU.EDU.UUCP (06/17/87)
While what you say is true, I think that your flame is still
unjustifie. Consider the simple fact that Apple has done more than any
manufacturer I know of to maintain upward compatibility across an evolving
line of computers.
I think it is unreasonable to expect programmers *not* to take
advantage of the additional features that the 128K and 256K ROMs
provide. The new features provide faster operation, bug fixes,
and additional routines that make the task of writing
a Mac application quicker and easi I'm sorry, but the 128K Macintosh
and the 512K (old ROM) Macintosh are *obsolete*.
I own a 512K Macintosh with the old ROMs in it, and I intend to
pay $300 to upgrade to the 512KEnhanced. It's not much to pay.
"What I'm looking at here is essentially a $3000 computer system
that is becoming an obsolete piece of junk in less than 2 years..."
Speak for yourself. By your standards, my nearly-2-year-old 512K Mac
is an obsolete piece of junk, but I'm *still* doing useful and
serious development work on it. And I don't own a hard drive.
IF it's a worthless and obsolete piece of junk, then it's
you who are making it so, and not anyone else.
What about the IBM PC series? They're several years old, but most
of them I know are still in use. (Not taht I'm defending IBM here; I'm
merely providing example). The AT came out, and now the PS/2 series, but
(and) both are incompatible with the original PC, but
how much pissing and moaning do you hear from IBM owners?
Think about it.
--Rich
R-Squared Development Systems
134 Horseshoe Drive
Williamsburg, Virginia 23185
(804) 229-2152 [After 6pm eastern time only]
Arpanet: rs4u@andrew.cmu.edu
Uucp: {your fave gateway}!seismo!andrew.cmu.edu!rs4u
Disclaimer? I don't even KNOW 'er!
"Do you wanna be a cop or a lost cause?"
-- Sean Connery, in "The Untouchables"jww@sdcsvax.UUCP (06/20/87)
I would just like to note that Apple is making a concerted effort
NOT to let the Plus & 512Ke get obsolete, which I think they ought
to be commended for. I think NEW software should use HFS,
the Script Manager, extended TextEdit, etc.
From a technical standpoint, keeping the 512 up to the state of the
art with the other machines would be very difficult if not impossible.
Certainly diminishing returns and bordering on impractical.
Besides, there are not '600,000' old-ROM machines. Maybe 300,000, and
probably not even that many. Apple sold 300,000 machines the first
year, very few old ROM machines the 2nd year (mostly Plus's), and
many of the original generation machines (10%? 40%?) upgraded to
the new ROM.
And, I hate to repeat it (because it starts flame wars when
you call someone 'cheap'), but those who don't spring for an upgrade
are less likely to buy (as opposed to 'borrow') new software.
--
Joel West
{ucbvax,ihnp4}!sdcsvax!jww or jww@sdcsvax.ucsd.eduja1w#@andrew.cmu.edu (Jesse Adelman) (06/26/87)
In article <YouKnowTheOne>, rs4u+@ANDREW.CMU.EDU (Richard Siegel) writes >I think it is unreasonable to expect programmers *not* to take >advantage of the additional features that the 128K and 256K ROMs >provide. The new features provide faster operation, bug fixes, >and additional routines that make the task of writing >a Mac application quicker and easi I'm sorry, but the 128K Macintosh >and the 512K (old ROM) Macintosh are *obsolete*. Obsolete? Heck, the Macintosh II is obsolete (when you see a Cray)! I wonder how many people (and institutions) still have "old" Macs? It seems that people who work in the computer industy have passed on the disease to the people who use the computers. That disease is called "Mustahava Latestjunkamus." It forces people to go out and order the "latest" a) hardware, b) software, c) remote control, and d) pizza - even though the old machine WORKS for them, and they have no reason to upgrade/buy the latest thing. If you don't need footnotes and psuedo-IBM compatibility, stick with goode olde MacWrite. Don't need multiple drawing windows on the screen? Then MacPaint will still be your friend. I, myself, have the "Mustahava Latestjunkamus" disease, but I don't think that this should be forced onto the general computing public. Jesse Adelman JA1W+@Andrew.CMU.EDU JA1W+@TE.CC.CMU.EDU {BitNet? New type of fishing gear?}
wmcb@ecsvax.UUCP (06/30/87)
( oh no! I feel compelled to respond...) " My next computer will be an IBM..." Hm?! I remember way back, hundreds of years ago, in 1978 when I had an IBM5100 desktop sitting around my desktop (no, Virginia, the PC wasn't their first try in the market) next to an Apple ][ -- well ,now, every- one knows we can just go buy parts and software for that 5100 off the shelf, while that old obsolete Apple ][ just collects dust; hm?! seriously, it's only obsolete when it _stops_ changing/growing; then look for a new model or a new company... statements like "isn't it a shame that computers keep getting better..." scare me. ( the compulsion left...) wcb.
chuq%plaid@Sun.COM (Chuq Von Rospach) (07/06/87)
>Obsolete? Heck, the Macintosh II is obsolete (when you see a Cray)! Not true at all, because the Cray isn't a machine that can reasonably be considered in the Mac market. Last I heard, for instance, it didn't normally come with bitmaps, 3.5" floppies, or run Mac software. So it can't be used to obsolete a Mac. >I wonder >how many people (and institutions) still have "old" Macs? According to the folks at Apple, about 20,000 out of 1,000,000 units. That isn't exactly what I'd call a heavy percentage of users -- 2% of total units is a negligible market, especially when a reasonable upgrade path is available. >It seems that >people who work in the computer industy have passed on the disease to the >people who use the computers. That disease is called "Mustahava >Latestjunkamus." It forces people to go out and order the "latest" a) >hardware, b) software, c) remote control, and d) pizza - even though the old >machine WORKS for them, and they have no reason to upgrade/buy the latest >thing. If you don't need footnotes and psuedo-IBM compatibility, stick with >goode olde MacWrite. Don't need multiple drawing windows on the screen? Then >MacPaint will still be your friend. I, myself, have the "Mustahava >Latestjunkamus" disease, but I don't think that this should be forced onto >the general computing public. You're overgeneralizing. I don't think anyone is forced to upgrade anything. There are still 20,000 users who are evidently very happy with their old ROM mac -- either that, or they've given up on it. But that doesn't mean that technology should stand still and wait for them. If you're happy with what you have, stick with it (I know at least one author who is very happil making lots of money writing novels on a TRS-80, for instance). But don't expect those of us who need (or want) more power to stay behind. I could not survive with a 128K old ROM machine -- if that was my only alternative, I'd be using something else. Technology moves forward. People either follow, or fall behind. Neither is right or wrong in a general case -- it depends on what you need. But don't generalize your case to everyone ellse. chuq Chuq Von Rospach chuq@sun.COM Delphi: CHUQ Touch Not the Cat Bot a Glove -- MacIntosh Clan Motto
DTREADW@pucc.UUCP (07/08/87)
In article <22665@sun.uucp>, chuq%plaid@Sun.COM (Chuq Von Rospach) writes: >>Obsolete? Heck, the Macintosh II is obsolete (when you see a Cray)! > >Not true at all, because the Cray isn't a machine that can reasonably be >considered in the Mac market. Last I heard, for instance, it didn't >normally come with bitmaps, 3.5" floppies, or run Mac software. So it can't >be used to obsolete a Mac. Gee, its good to know that my TRASH-80 is not obselete next to the MAC II! Last I heard, the MAC II didn't normally come with character codes for graphics, a cassette drive to store programs, or run TRS-80 software.
news@sun.UUCP (07/09/87)
In article <3088@pucc.Princeton.EDU> DTREADW@pucc.Princeton.EDU writes: >In article <22665@sun.uucp>, chuq%plaid@Sun.COM (Chuq Von Rospach) writes: > >>>Obsolete? Heck, the Macintosh II is obsolete (when you see a Cray)! >> >>Not true at all, because the Cray isn't a machine that can reasonably be >>considered in the Mac market. Last I heard, for instance, it didn't >>normally come with bitmaps, 3.5" floppies, or run Mac software. So it can't >>be used to obsolete a Mac. > >Gee, its good to know that my TRASH-80 is not obselete next to the MAC II! >Last I heard, the MAC II didn't normally come with character codes for >graphics, a cassette drive to store programs, or run TRS-80 software. okay, as long as people are going to be stupid or intentionally obtuse about it.... If you are planning on using TRS-*80 programs or features, then yes, your TRS is not obsolete. What I thought was obvious was the fact that you don't make a given machine obsolete by using as an example another machine that costs two orders of magnitude more -- plust the raised floor and cooling costs. Now, when you can fit a Cray on top of my desk and have it cost $10,000, I might agree with you. Until then... Chuq Von Rospach chuq@sun.COM Delphi: CHUQ Touch Not the Cat Bot a Glove -- MacIntosh Clan Motto
wiechman@topaz.rutgers.edu (NightWalker) (07/13/87)
From DTREADW@pucc.Princeton.EDU (David Treadwell) Wed Jul 8 14:03:05 1987 >Gee, its good to know that my TRASH-80 is not obselete next to the MAC II! >Last I heard, the MAC II didn't normally come with character codes for >graphics, a cassette drive to store programs, or run TRS-80 software. Just think of all those people paying for those expensive backups on tape when they could of got them cheap and even have a CPU thrown in as well. Kevin -- Kevin S. Wiechmann "This posting is a figment of my imagination." "Real programmers started with 4K on TRS-80 Model I" arpa: WIECHMAN@RUTGERS.EDU